tv [untitled] May 1, 2011 10:00am-10:30am PDT
commissioner brandon: meeting is called to order. >> approval of minutes for the april 12, 2011 meeting. all in favor? item three, public comment on executive session. no one here. item four, executive session. >> so move. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> move that we reconvene in open session. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye.
>> move that would not discuss any of the items discussed in executive session. >> second. >> all in favor. >> please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person reonsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic device. be advised that a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the port commission adopts a shorter time on any item. items on the consent calendar. request authorization to advertise for competitive bids for contracts to 7452 hyde street harbor joint operations credit. 70, request authorization to award construction contracts to
7465-year maintenance dredging project, in the initial amount of $4 million and increase the contract amount by 10% or $400,000 in the event of unanticipated contingencies and subject to available funding and authorization to increase the contract amount to a sum not to exceed $50,000,901 -- 51 -- $50,901,050. word a construction contract for bayfront park project in an amount not to exceed $1,579,450, and authorization for a 10% contingency of $157,945. commissioner brandon: can we have a motion? is there any public comment on this item? all in favor?
any of those? resolutions 1124, 1125, and 1126 have been approved. >> item 8a, informational presentation of the draft st. paul banner criteria, which would govern the design, placement, and fees for the placement of st. paul banners within the jurisdiction of the port of san francisco -- st. paul banners -- street pole banners within the jurisdiction of the port of san francisco. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to speak to you about street pole better criteria. the city currently permits
debtors to be held in utility poles for limited periods of time to inform the public about events as described in the public works code. the court has also allow banners on the center median of the embarcadero road way and on jefferson street for the past 10 years. the city uses an adopted public works code to define and regulate how this is done, and we propose that the port adopt criteria similar to the public works code, all the criteria that respond to the public trust requirements and unique waterfront conditions. currently, the court uses an encroachment permit process to issue permits to hang banners. for your review are the draft st. paul banner criteria, which would regulate the design, placement, and fees. the purpose of regulating street: banners -- street pole is to create a dynamic and colorful appearance to the waterfront that furthers the
objective rather than enhance it -- by enhance the attractiveness and objectives to the public while minimizing the visual blight. the draft better criteria are, to an extent, modeled after the city's public works code. the proposed criteria are specific to the port in the following ways. the port's draft better criteria would allow banners announcing any event, which is defined as an activity of general public interest to san francisco residents or visitors to the port of san francisco that takes place in the city or within port jurisdiction and can reasonably be expected to have an in-person attendance of 500 or more persons. for a single event or 1000 or more for a series of events. the criteria defined specific streets. in addition to the center median of the embarcadero road way and jefferson street. be executive director may approve banners on of the streets have become appropriate,
such as a newly developed pier 70 area. the criteria described banners in three categories. just some examples on the graphics here that you can look at as i talk. a banner announcing an event to the port or its tenants, a public agency banner, which is announcing an event sponsored or supported by the city or its departments or other government agency, and that furthers the mission of that agency, and an even better, which announces an event which will benefit a government agency or charitable nonprofit organization and that will take place on publicly- owned property within the city of san francisco and further a public purpose. banners would not be allowed for political purposes or for general commercial advertising. as for duration, banners would be permitted for up to 50 days or until five days after the day of the sponsored event. banners could be reinstalled for
an additional 50 days after they have been off for 70 days, and the port's executive director could allow placement of banners were greater than 50 days, so banners will convey a clear message and avoid visual clutter, all polls within a single block would be limited to a single banner, or banner permits are for four blocks. both the city and port currently impose fees only to recoup administrative costs for operating the program. the port does this through the permit process, using dpw's established schedule. staff recommends continuing this practice. in addition, we have investigated charging the proprietary better fee, representing a reasonable rate as a revenue source that will be on the staff cost of administering the program. a proprietary fee would be for the privilege and use up for property to hang banners that promote a non-commercial event, as defined in the criteria, by a
tenant or nonprofit organization, and could be promoted by a corporate sponsor. examples of banner's where there could be a proprietary fee are the san francisco giants advertising their presence at home games, various non-profit and banners such as the variety of benefits at a kind for property, an exhibit opening at a museum or the beginning of the ballet season. staff repair market comparisons with the airport and mta to test the structure as an example of proprietary fees asset that it dollars for a banner per 50-day placement, a rate well below the anticipated market value of the space occupied by each banner. staff plans to conduct a study to determine the market value for the banner of four streets, and if it appears to be a feasible source of revenue, would bend to the commission for
its consideration. following this informational presentation, staff will return to the commission for consideration of adoption of the criteria without a proprietary fee. at a later date, staff may also return with a proposal for a proprietary at the. that concludes my staff report. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. first of all, thanks for doing this. i think it would be very useful and i would think make it easier, too. i have a series of questions -- who installed the banners? >> when an applicant wishes to install them, they hire a banner company that does it. and the better company than files for encroachment permit, which boasts the necessary insurance and meets the requirements of working on for property. >> ok, so the insurance kicks in
with the permit. ok, that was one question. i did not really understand the terms section, the 50 days and 70 days lapse. is that based on some experience? what was magical about those numbers? >> the purpose for limiting the length of banner placements to 50 days, and that could be a different number. it could be 70. it could be 40 or whatever -- is to maintain a freshness to the waterfront. banners are something that are up there. they are signs. they move in the wind a bit. and to create a lively freshness to the waterfront every time a visitor comes for every so often, these change, and the appearance changes. we have been testing this better criteria for the past three years and then using that number, so it has been a model that has been working. it certainly could be a different number, and the same intent of after 50 days, you have to be off for a while, and
you can bring that back, and it would appear fresh again. >> ok. so 50 seems to work, and 70 just seems like a nice, intermittent time. ok. i was also confused about the placement on the blocks. you describe it one way, and i am reading it another. it is not clear to me at all the way this is written, how many can be on one block or not be or have any banners. and that a change we made a couple of years ago as we were testing this out is we began to require -- allow only one permitted per block. at one point, we would have three different ones within a block, and the study to look like confetti. you would not get a clear message of any single banner committee coming through. we also found that not all poles could accept banners.
divisibility of streetlights or conflicts with some of the arms that service the muni lines. even though there are about 20 calls per block on average, and you could put two banners on each one, and in reality, it does not come out to that number. sometimes well, sometimes 14. once in awhile, it is down around eight. there is a limited number. we encourage applicants as they come in to fill the entire block, and that is how we have been administering the program. >> the main goal is to have one for block so you do not have this double. >> correct, and have a visual punch to their program by repeating the image. >> in the maintenance section, it says the banners should be removed repair immediately -- okay, so once that thing goes up, all the responsibility is on the committee -- permittee.
>> correct. and i would like to say we have not had trouble with people removing their banners. other than that, it has been very successful. we have not had maintenance problems. we have not had to chase applicants down to do that. >> great. thank you. >> that has been our experience. >> thank you. just some questions with respect to the fee being charged. would it be a standard fee, or would be there -- with there be any great nation? >> would you clarify which fee? we have a processing fee to administer it, and there's a possibility in the future of a proprietary at the. >> can you go over all the fees? >> ok. right now, public works and the port bow charge an administrative fee to handle the staff cost of administering the program, and it is a minimal fee. probably does not factor in the time required to maintain the program, such as developing
standards, but it does require the inclusion of permit process -- encroachment permit process that goes into it. i'm sorry i did not have the numbers with me at this time. it is not very significant. the board adopts the public works these scheduled to that. the other at the we're proposing to study would be a license to use port property, saying that this is valuable commercial advertising space, and should we pursue looking at this as a revenue source, and raises the question of with these applicants be willing to continue the use of this. we have looked at some of these schedules at the airport. they have had a commercial banner program. or a commercial sign program. throughout the airport, and a contract with clear channel is quite significant, and they have set rates on this and a way of
administering it. the airport space is very different than ours. we have done some market analysis, but we feel we would need to have an outside consultant to a detailed analysis to determine the value of these spaces. >> just want to clarify the vernacular. the licensing fee is more like rent. what did you and to count -- more like you run into constitutional problems. >> we do not charge a licensing fee. >> and there would be the ability to charge different types of applicants different fees, should it be the preference of the commission at that time. rent. every time i said at the, i meant rent -- every time i said fee. >> what happens to the scuffles and do not take down their signs? what is the penalty for that?
>> at one time in the draft we had written, we were suggesting imposing a fine. because it has not been a problem, we pulled back out. public works does have a fine system, and if we put one in, we would have to go to the board for an ordinance, i believe. what we have in here now as if there are continued problems with this, it would require posting a bond, and the executive director could ask for a $25,000 bond to see about this. there are a limited number of companies that install banners. i think they all wanted to do business again and again, which is probably why we have not had a problem. >> and of course, charging bid is an incentive of the town. >> yes. certain days. >> would there be a hierarchy of renters if two wanted to come in
at the same time? would it be first-come, first- served? >> we might address the question by telling you how we administer the space on the embarcadero now. we keep some charts based on a month by month that when we get an applicant, they can come in -- they must show up at least two weeks before. i cannot remember the exact number, but two weeks before and not more than 120 days before, so we are able to keep our accounting set, and we assign it -- we try to match the location of the event with the location along the promenade. there is a statement in here that says or sponsored a waterfront event. i do not have the exact wording. would get preference over city- sponsored events. we can develop in the spring. we had a very quiet month in january, february, up until about mid-march when it comes in.
if it became much more popular, it could become an issue. right now, it seems to balance out quite well, and we are able to keep, i think, pretty much everybody satisfied and able to find a place for them, although not always their first choice. most applicants want to be right in front of the ferry building, and there is only one right in front of the ferry building at a time. >> is there a limit to how long they can be there now? >> we are administering it as it is proposed here, 50 days. then they must come down, which is seven weeks in a day, which also works with the way and installer functions. they put them up on a monday and take them down on a monday. >> throughout the city, there is no rent being charged for a better? >> correct. >> that is interesting. a cross between a thousand dollars and $10,000 to hang them? does the money go to making the
banner? >> yes, it goes to fabricating the banners and the company that fabricates them also does the installation, sends a truck out and does the install and the de-install. that is where the real cost of cutting benefits of this. the fee paid to the port or city is very minor compared to the actual cost. >> then, do we refer people to better companies? >> no, we would not do that. they are responsible for finding their own. >> hopefully, you can come back with the fee. >> rent. levy >> on banner content, under the design criteria, will there be any kind of prohibition or
review? i guess that goes down a slippery slope. >> these criteria state that they encourage a clear display of the message, which i do not think is quite addressing what your comment is about. on our to do list, when it comes back in its final form, is that add a little bit of language, particularly if we charge read, that would limit the content to limit alcohol and tobacco advertising and some other things as such. you do not see that in here today. >> and then, there is intent to allow a listing of corporate or commercial sponsorship. >> the sponsor is allowed to occupy 15% of the better area, and that is consistent with the city's public works code. >> is there a higher rent charged for those who do that?
>> we will have -- when and if we do come back, we will have the option -- or there is the ability to show more than just one rate, but to breakdowns and what not. again, it is not commercial advertising. it is for any event, and the sponsor is incidental to what is listed. they have a commercial purpose, we get into something very different that would require an ordinance. >> currently prohibited. >> unless there is a local opera -- permitting it. it relates to a proposition passed in 2002 that prohibits advertising except on public streets, where permitted by a low laugh. i hope i said that right. -- were committed by a local law -- were permitted werewhere -- where permitted by a local law.
>> sometimes we have banners, and very rarely, but every now and then, are they -- commissioner brandon: is there any public comment on this item? thank you. >> item 8b, informational presentation on the determination of fiscal feasibility for the genes are herman cruise terminal at pier 27 and ne work plaza project. >> good afternoon. this is the item with regard to fiscal feasibility for the cruise terminal project. -- northeast wharf plaza project. >> good afternoon. this is the item with regard to the fiscal feasibility for the cruise terminal project. hang on one minute.
i'm from the planning development. i am also part of the team looking at the cruise terminal project. the item relates to the fiscal feasibility requirement by the city. on the next -- whoops. i knew this was going to happen. there is a fiscal feasibility requirement. chapter 29 of the city's administrative codes require certain city project be subject to physical disability, review at the board of supervisors before the city planning department can commence on
environmental review under ceqa. i want to make a clarification. the staff report should have said that it applies to projects for which one implementation and the construction costs exceed $25 million, which the cruise terminal does, and at the time of funding for ceqa review, a portion of the pre-development planning or construction cost is in excess of the $1 million excluding city personnel costs, will be paid from public moneys. we have filed this report, the staff report with the city clerk. it should be held with the budget and finance committee on may. there are two underlying principles or questions under fiscal feasibility, which is, one, how is the court going to fund this project? and two, what are the city benefits?
with regards to the funding, i will talk about that, but you need to talk about costs first. let's quickly review -- i know you have seen this before, but what the project is -- this is the existing site of pier 27. what we propose to do is demolish pier 27 shed. that portion of the pier 29 shed, the non-historic portion, as well as the pier 27 office annex building, which is the -- i do not have a pointer with me, but the small building along the embarcadero next to pier 27. that will be, if all goes well, miraculously developed into the new cruise terminal project, and per the host city and the new agreement, the event of authority is required to demolish pier 27, pier 29, as well as relocate the short side
power equipment. this allows the port to come in as what we're calling this one in 2012, to build or construct the shell building, which is noted here. the event authority is then given exclusive use during 2013 for their races. in 2014, the site is returned to the port so that we can finish the phase two construction, and that relates solely towards the -- making it an operable cruise terminal facility as well as competing improvements. as i was mentioning, the funding for this budget really relates to what the cost art. -- what the costs are. the prevailing costs are what
has been estimated four phase one as $65.7 million. that includes the event at 40's portion, which is heard the host city -- that includes the event then you -- venue's portion, which is per the host city. as ken mentioned two weeks ago, this was done as a result of reducing the project cost by about $16.5 million, shipping some costs, about $11 million, from phase one to phase two, and identifying additional funding for the project. i do not think anybody can see this, but this is the funding sources you have seen before. it was in the staff report two weeks ago.
it was in the staff report to the board of supervisors, but it talks about what we are prescribing for the phase one and phase two funding sources, and is divided into plant and proposed sources. i will not get into it directly, other than most of the funds in phase one car for the watermark condo sales proceeds, and the revenue bonds, which have already been issued. the phase two proposed costs include the 2012 general obligations bonds that would have to go to the vote of the people. $9.1 million would be directed toward the northeast wharf plaza. below that, the $2.75 million, which is now called the cruise operator contribution. that would be dedicated for a that would be dedicated for a mobile gang way system.